Tyler Bennett wore boxer shorts instead of a jock strap when playing basketball for Colts Neck High School, and a resulting action photo published in the school’s yearbook inadvertently revealed more (or perhaps less) than Bennett would have liked. Some students didn’t return the yearbooks when they were recalled the business day after they were released, and an opposing basketball player teased Bennett the next year. Bennett claimed untold emotional distress (though he never sought counseling or medical assistance for his trauma) and sued the school board, three officials, two teachers, the publishing company, and nine students; the latter have had to hire their own attorneys at their own expense if their parents didn’t have homeowner’s insurance. “Some of the students weren’t even editors. The yearbook at Colts Neck High School is produced by a journalism class and some noneditors in the class jumped into the “editors” picture before it was snapped for the yearbook. Not able to determine who was responsible for content, [attorney Steven] Kessel named everyone in the picture.” Bennett even threw in a child pornography charge.
The trial court tossed the case (though only after depositions and summary judgment briefing) and an appeals court summarily affirmed, but Kessel says he’ll appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court, which will add to the legal expenses of the defendants. Though the case was meritless, the court refused sanctions because the suit technically wasn’t “frivolous” because it wasn’t brought in “bad faith,” exhibiting once again the disconnect between the legal definition of “frivolous” in many states and the popular understanding of the adjective. (Henry Gottlieb, “Former Student Sues Over Revealing Yearbook Photo”, New Jersey Law Journal, Jul. 17; James Quirk, “Judge: Embarrassed ex-Colts Neck student has no claim in yearbook case”, Asbury Park Press, Jun. 24 (via Romenesko); Bennett v. Board of Education (unpublished)).
4 Comments
“Though the case was meritless, the court refused sanctions because the suit technically wasn’t “frivolous” because it wasn’t brought in “bad faith,” exhibiting once again the disconnect between the legal definition of “frivolous” in many states and the popular understanding of the adjective.”
I’m going to just start calling them meritless instead of frivolous, as legal —-s have redefined “frivolous” out of existance and refuse to consider any other definition than their own.
All meritless suits should be considered frivolous and merit sanctions.
I sure in heck hope it was dismissed after summary judgment briefing. Do you really think judges should be dismissing cases ex parte prior to being informed of the facts or the law?!
No, but if one is going to bring a legally and factually meritless lawsuit against over a dozen faultless parties, the innocent parties should perhaps have recourse for compensation when the legal system cannot resolve these questions inexpensively.
All too often, reform opponents respond to reports of a ludicrous suit by noting that the defense won and therefore “the system worked.” Pointing out that the defense had to bear costs of discovery and what will now be three levels of briefing shows that the system didn’t work here.
“Three levels of briefing”? That would have forestalled the whole sorry episode, though it might have constricted Bennett’s on-court moves.